From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:45:34 -0700 Why will publishers agree to this scheme? Peer-review is the most important service they provide ... for nothing? Ari Belenkiy SFU Canada On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:24:50 +0000 > > Experience suggests that the value added to a peer-reviewed manuscript > by a copy-editor varies considerably. If the peer-reviewers have done > their job, any false facts or illogicality in the research arguments > should have been picked up. Precision of language and grammar are > important but an author may have as good a grasp of language and > grammar as a copy-editor. I am not suggesting that copy-editors do not > play any role in the quality of the published article, but quality > lies to a greater extent in the quality of the research reported in > the article than it does in copy-editing. The question we have to face > is whether the variable value added by a publisher through > copy-editing or any other service is worth the substantial sum a > publisher charges for such services. How much is using the services of > a publisher worth? > > Fred Friend > Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL > > ________________________________________ > > From: Mark Goodwin <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:16:21 -0400 > > Ah, so *not* the "final" version, but the penultimate version (post > peer review, at acceptance, pre-copyedit). > > That is, the rough manuscript version that has not yet passed a > rigorous copyedit for facts, logical structure, and precision of > language, not to mention grammar, etc., irrespective of whatever > typesetting or formatting may be applied for public consumption. > > (apologies for the intentional smug tone...) > > Ever and always, a Copy Editor at heart... -Mark > > M. L. Goodwin, ELS ([log in to unmask]) > Editorial Manager, Publications > The American Physiological Society > Bethesda, MD 20814 > http://www.The-APS.org > > Integrating the Life Sciences from Molecule to Organism > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Iris Brest <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:11:31 -0700 > > Sandy -- They will be the version of accepted articles post peer review. > > 9. What version of their article should Faculty submit to the repository? > > The policy requires that the author submit the "final version", which > safely means the manuscript copy post-peer review but before a > publisher typesets and finalizes it. > > Iris Brest/Stanford University > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:59:52 -0500 > > > All research publications > > covered by the policy will continue to be subjected to rigorous peer > > review; they will still appear in the most prestigious journals across > > all fields; and they will continue to meet UC's standards of high > > quality. > > Just wondering if the "standards of high quality" include high quality > in copyediting? Will UC be paying to have the accepted articles > copyedited before they are posted in eScholarship? If not, how can > this promise of "high quality" be made? Does UC think copyediting not > important? Do all UC faculty write pristine prose that is free of > errors? > > Sandy Thatcher